Oh noes, you got me again, I am so ashamed and embarassed. ADD, it's such a terrible curse upon me.
Oh well, if you change your mind at any time, you can call that number and leave a message.
And one of the defining traits about you is that you never ever admit you're wrong, no matter what. Just like everything else, I'm sure it's not something you're aware of, but it's true nonetheless. I'm sure others will agree (vote here or here).
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
The mere fact that Google is undertaking it means that Google itself believes they will reap real profits from Print, in some form or other. (granted, there are things like corporate charity that is either less directly commercially beneficial or is sometimes actual benevolence, but Google Print isn't being touted in this fashion at all)
Can we quote you on that? Better yet, could you call 312-625-1433 and leave a message repeating that phrase? I'd pay anything to have an MP3 of that.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Interesting, though it specifically says only 1 copy is allowed, and that only the library's employees are allowed to do the copying. Also, that section says "the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage", and the my.mp3.com ruling clearly stated that even though it was only based on ad revenue, my.mp3.com was still classified as commercial activity.
Yes, I agree that it's possible that a ruling against Google Print might have repercussions on Google Cache.
As far as I can tell, whenever a lawsuit has been brought against Google Cache or the Internet Archive, the companies just pull the trigger on their opt-out mechanism, thus averting the lawsuit. Does anyone know of a lawsuit that has gone through successfully against Google Cache or Internet Archive?
If a lawsuit was brought against Google from many different websites, claiming that opt-out isn't enough (eg. see spam lawsuits and legislation about opt-out), then perhaps that might have more force. But websites aren't banded together in the way thta music studios are.
As the My.MP3.com lawsuit showed, the judicial system cares. My.MP3.com was a service that was apparently beneficial to consumers and producers alike, yet MP3.com went out of business based on the specific wording of fair use law.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Internally, Google is absolutely making 100% copies of books. Externally, no, but that's not a significant distinction. Google is legally prohibited from buying one O'Reilly book, slapping it on its copiers, and distributing full copies to all of its employees for technical work. Similarly, Google isn't allowed to internally make full copies of books onto its servers.
I don't think the law supports your arguments about "publicly available". Copyright still applies to websites in general. Just because an image or text is on the web doesn't mean it's legal to copy entire pages and republish them under your own name, for instace.
Re:Good from libraries outweighs harm to producers
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Libraries don't copy books. In the eyes of the law, Google IS copying its books by making tens or hundreds of copies of books onto its internal servers.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Checking books out from a library does not involve copyright law, as you're not making a copy of anything.
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Google's use is commercial (see the judge's argument in the my.mp3.com case). Most use at a library is usually educational, but it may not be.
the nature of the copyrighted work
No difference
Amount and substantiality
Google is copying 100% of the books. It's fairly well established that it's not legal to copy an entire book in your library's copier, that it's only legal to copy some subset of the pages.
On the web, there are a variety mechanisms that store 100% copies of webpages and images: corporate/ISP/college proxies, individual's browser caches, and to some extent the search engines themselves. Also, it's almost become standard operating practice that these kinds of things are opt-out, just like the cache is. Though I don't know how exactly that fits into the four factors of US fair-use law.
"They want to have more of a constant supply," said Matt Rosoff, analyst at Directions on Microsoft, an independent research firm.
"They don't want a huge spike in December and then a slump in January and February," Rosoff said, "They're trying to avoid that."
So that whole... christmas sales things... that's not important? Are they literally saying that they're going to stockpile units during christmas, in hopes that more people will buy them after christmas? Isn't that a rediculous suggestion on its face?
But there are some consumers who want to get the console ASAP. If the hardware is release-quality, what's the problem if Microsoft releases it on Nov 22? As others noted, more choice is always good for consumer. (on the other hand, if launch games aren't release quality, then they should push back the dates for the individual games)
Plus, they aren't even going to upscale DVDs!
If you have a decent scaler in your TV, you don't need it.
Also, the PS3's Cell processor looks like it might have enough horsepower to be a decent deinterlacer/scaler, so hopefully that'll be a good option for that.
Yes, there are certainly a range of different consumers... Nintendo is going for the 40-year-old-mom market, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But just as you don't care about online play, there IS a specific market that DOES care about it, and that market shouldn't be ignored either, especially because they probably buy the largest number of games.
The "must sell with 2 games" might possibly be reatailer-initiated, but the "must sell out" certainly isn't... if you're a retail store, you want to have slightly MORE stock than is necessary, to make sure that when the n+1 person walks in your door with a fist full of cash, that you have a console to sell them.
But the centralized features of XBox Live Silver (gamer card, friends list, the whole micropayments thing) really make sense to have set up by the console manufacturer. I'm really kind of stunned that Sony is waiting until the PS4 to implement these.
Yeah, and any organization that's super-successful is doing everything right. Just look at US foreign policy.
I'm very surprised that Sony didn't at least do a half-assed copy of what XBox Live was. Because what XBox Live will be on the 360 is really the right way to go. I can't imagine that consoles 20 years from now won't basically be based off of some of the core features of XBox Live. Everything I've heard of so far just makes sense to me, and lots of friends and podcasters seem to agree.
They can create rootkits all they want. If the Sonys and Universals and EMIs of the world get a clear message through the press that rootkits scare customers off, then Sony/Universal/EMI won't ever buy stuff from First4Internet, or they'll force First4Internet to remove the rootkit.
Or, what's even more important, encourage the story to be in the media, so more people read about it. THAT is what gets companies to stop doing things. This story is already getting quite a bit of press, but call your local newspaper and ask them if they might run a story on it.
2) 4th ammendment does not apply because you agreed to it in the EUALA.
3) often, Punkbuster wasn't optional, depending on servers. Here, there's usually just one single server. And that server's policy is... bada bum... that you have to run the anti-cheat software.
4) yes, you do have a choice. read the EULA, realize it'll scan your computer, and PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME, you dirty cheater
Well, in DotNetNuke's case, their CMS is built on top of ASP.NET, and SQL Server or Oracle. In this case, I don't think people care so much that it's built on top of proprietary tools, they probably more care that it means it will probably cost them more money to get this particular CMS up and running, whereas other CMS's are free as-in-beer. On top of that, it's very likely non-portable.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh well, if you change your mind at any time, you can call that number and leave a message.
And one of the defining traits about you is that you never ever admit you're wrong, no matter what. Just like everything else, I'm sure it's not something you're aware of, but it's true nonetheless. I'm sure others will agree (vote here or here).
The mere fact that Google is undertaking it means that Google itself believes they will reap real profits from Print, in some form or other. (granted, there are things like corporate charity that is either less directly commercially beneficial or is sometimes actual benevolence, but Google Print isn't being touted in this fashion at all)
Can we quote you on that? Better yet, could you call 312-625-1433 and leave a message repeating that phrase? I'd pay anything to have an MP3 of that.
Interesting, though it specifically says only 1 copy is allowed, and that only the library's employees are allowed to do the copying. Also, that section says "the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage", and the my.mp3.com ruling clearly stated that even though it was only based on ad revenue, my.mp3.com was still classified as commercial activity.
As far as I can tell, whenever a lawsuit has been brought against Google Cache or the Internet Archive, the companies just pull the trigger on their opt-out mechanism, thus averting the lawsuit. Does anyone know of a lawsuit that has gone through successfully against Google Cache or Internet Archive?
If a lawsuit was brought against Google from many different websites, claiming that opt-out isn't enough (eg. see spam lawsuits and legislation about opt-out), then perhaps that might have more force. But websites aren't banded together in the way thta music studios are.
As the My.MP3.com lawsuit showed, the judicial system cares. My.MP3.com was a service that was apparently beneficial to consumers and producers alike, yet MP3.com went out of business based on the specific wording of fair use law.
Internally, Google is absolutely making 100% copies of books. Externally, no, but that's not a significant distinction. Google is legally prohibited from buying one O'Reilly book, slapping it on its copiers, and distributing full copies to all of its employees for technical work. Similarly, Google isn't allowed to internally make full copies of books onto its servers.
I don't think the law supports your arguments about "publicly available". Copyright still applies to websites in general. Just because an image or text is on the web doesn't mean it's legal to copy entire pages and republish them under your own name, for instace.
Libraries don't copy books. In the eyes of the law, Google IS copying its books by making tens or hundreds of copies of books onto its internal servers.
Checking books out from a library does not involve copyright law, as you're not making a copy of anything.
There are four factors to US Fair Use law. The differences between Google's copying and library photocopying are:
Google's use is commercial (see the judge's argument in the my.mp3.com case). Most use at a library is usually educational, but it may not be.
No difference
Google is copying 100% of the books. It's fairly well established that it's not legal to copy an entire book in your library's copier, that it's only legal to copy some subset of the pages.
No difference
On the web, there are a variety mechanisms that store 100% copies of webpages and images: corporate/ISP/college proxies, individual's browser caches, and to some extent the search engines themselves. Also, it's almost become standard operating practice that these kinds of things are opt-out, just like the cache is. Though I don't know how exactly that fits into the four factors of US fair-use law.
So that whole... christmas sales things... that's not important? Are they literally saying that they're going to stockpile units during christmas, in hopes that more people will buy them after christmas? Isn't that a rediculous suggestion on its face?
Don't you have problems with SD OTA/television/cable content on a 65" TV too? If so, isn't it better to have a proper scaler either in your TV, or as an external box right before your TV? (FWIW, that price is better than what was previously available at the top-end)
Also, the PS3's Cell processor looks like it might have enough horsepower to be a decent deinterlacer/scaler, so hopefully that'll be a good option for that.
Yes, there are certainly a range of different consumers... Nintendo is going for the 40-year-old-mom market, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But just as you don't care about online play, there IS a specific market that DOES care about it, and that market shouldn't be ignored either, especially because they probably buy the largest number of games.
The "must sell with 2 games" might possibly be reatailer-initiated, but the "must sell out" certainly isn't... if you're a retail store, you want to have slightly MORE stock than is necessary, to make sure that when the n+1 person walks in your door with a fist full of cash, that you have a console to sell them.
But the centralized features of XBox Live Silver (gamer card, friends list, the whole micropayments thing) really make sense to have set up by the console manufacturer. I'm really kind of stunned that Sony is waiting until the PS4 to implement these.
I'm very surprised that Sony didn't at least do a half-assed copy of what XBox Live was. Because what XBox Live will be on the 360 is really the right way to go. I can't imagine that consoles 20 years from now won't basically be based off of some of the core features of XBox Live. Everything I've heard of so far just makes sense to me, and lots of friends and podcasters seem to agree.
They can create rootkits all they want. If the Sonys and Universals and EMIs of the world get a clear message through the press that rootkits scare customers off, then Sony/Universal/EMI won't ever buy stuff from First4Internet, or they'll force First4Internet to remove the rootkit.
Or, what's even more important, encourage the story to be in the media, so more people read about it. THAT is what gets companies to stop doing things. This story is already getting quite a bit of press, but call your local newspaper and ask them if they might run a story on it.
- complain to editors about posting dupes
- editors start to link to their previous stories
- posters visit those previous stories, and copy links FROM THE previous FREAKING ARTICLE itself
- ???
- profit!!
How does this stuff get modded up?2) 4th ammendment does not apply because you agreed to it in the EUALA.
3) often, Punkbuster wasn't optional, depending on servers. Here, there's usually just one single server. And that server's policy is... bada bum... that you have to run the anti-cheat software.
4) yes, you do have a choice. read the EULA, realize it'll scan your computer, and PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME, you dirty cheater
Could you explain how IIS is more secure than Apache?
Well, in DotNetNuke's case, their CMS is built on top of ASP.NET, and SQL Server or Oracle. In this case, I don't think people care so much that it's built on top of proprietary tools, they probably more care that it means it will probably cost them more money to get this particular CMS up and running, whereas other CMS's are free as-in-beer. On top of that, it's very likely non-portable.